Bush Ignores Law, Fails To Appoint Policy Coordinator For North Korea
Bush Ignores Law, Fails To Appoint Policy Coordinator For North Korea
Since President Bush has been in office, North Korea has developed 10-11 bombs worth of plutonium, suitable for use in nuclear weapons, and conducted its first nuclear weapons test. All of the administration’s efforts to control North Korea’s nuclear program have failed.
Congress decided something had to be done. On Sept. 30, 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which required the President to appoint a Coordinator of Policy on North Korea to “provide policy direction and leadership for negotiations with North Korea relating to nuclear weapons.”
Bush signed the act into law on Oct. 17, 2006. The law required Bush to make the appointment within 60 days. Here’s the relevant section:
The 60 days were up on Dec. 16, 2006, which was 19 days ago. The situation in North Korea continues to deteriorate, but Bush still won’t act.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
56 Responses to “Bush Ignores Law, Fails To Appoint Policy Coordinator For North Korea”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The guy doesn't follow laws, is this a new concept?
January 4th, 2007 at 10:22 amI guess Chimpy forgot to 'decider' that one
January 4th, 2007 at 10:22 amBush is indeed on spotlights these days, looks like he is frequently addressing to rigourous activities.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:23 amDid anyone check it for a signing statement?
January 4th, 2007 at 10:24 amWhat's the difference here, if he does appoint someone it'll just be some incompetent lackey who will do no good.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:26 amDid anyone check it for a signing statement?
Comment by dlet — January 4, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Doh! You beat me to it!
January 4th, 2007 at 10:27 amI'm just thinking, but before we have a "Coordinator of Policy on North Korea" shouldn't we have some kind of policy to coordinate first?
January 4th, 2007 at 10:28 amWhat’s the difference here, if he does appoint someone it’ll just be some incompetent lackey who will do no good.
Comment by ForTruth — January 4, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Good point. Sad that we've reached the point in history where we DON'T want the president to act in the interest of the country, eh?
January 4th, 2007 at 10:28 amAnd Bush, like the situation in Korea, continues to deteriorate.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:29 amSo the republican dominated 109th congress created a bill the GW signed into law and now he's not following it. Let me guess, is there a signing statement attached to this law?
This is what has to be shown to the final 30%ers. This president does not have your best interests in mind. He has his own.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:30 amTell me honesty. Does this guy look like he is bright enough to understand and/or adhere to the laws of this country?
http://thumbsnap.com/v/6YvXAPG0.jpg
It still astounds me that we got saddled with this moron, not once, but twice.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:31 amI'm happy the Dems are making such a fuss about this, and trying to make GWB follow through....
I crack myself up.
Dems....?
Hello....?
January 4th, 2007 at 10:32 amHell yes, he made some signing statements. I'm perusing them now.
Link here.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:32 amI don't want bull shit bush to "act out" on anything else while still the imposed dictator...This man has the mentalety of a spoiled 5 year old, he need's to be in a streight jacket , sedated and locked away from world view....All his toy's (troop's) need to be taken away from him and returned to America, the world will be a better place when he is removed.....Blessings
January 4th, 2007 at 10:33 amIt astounds me on a regular basis too Tom. It's those damn wedge issues. People would support a pet rock in office if it was against gay marriage.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:34 amNorth Korea is planning to re-arm in 2007. China and Russia will help out, though not directly. Major arm sales to North Korea will probably come through some of the 'Stans.
China is starting to swing punches over Taiwan. The US and Japan appear ready to back Taiwan against China. So guess which 'crazy' country is nuked up and ready to back China against Taiwan/US/Japan?
There's a lot of tensions brewing over the internet cable supposedly busted during earthquakes off Taiwan. China, very quietly, has suffered massive financial pain from the drop-off in internet connections with the rest of the world.
I would presume Bush has gone quiet over North Korea because he has big plans to deal with NK this year, but all that comes after his 'My Big Plan To Save The Iraq War' announcements.
Expect to hear plenty about North Korea, and China, acting aggressively over Taiwan in the State Of The Union address.
As an Australian, the coming China/North Korea Vs Taiwan/Japan/US brawl makes me very nervous. Australia would be expected to back the US, but that might not necessarily be the case when China is involved.
If China tells Australia to stick its coal exports, the Australian economy catches a cold. A situation that the prime minister and treasurer are already making plans for.
But hey, at least a boondoggle over Taiwan will take the world's focus off Iraq.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:36 amFrom Bush's signing statement...
It begins:
He then references, among others, section 1211 which TP posted above.
We get this:
So it appears Bush has no intention of appointing a coordinator of policy. No surprise there. If he did, we might actually get somewhere with North Korea. Better for Bush to keep them on the sidelines, where he can whip them out at a moment's notice to frighten the 30% of his supporters.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:43 amThere is no "awl" in N. Korea and it's too far from Israel to be a military base, so it isn't relevant.
Ol' Dubya is just rearranging the deck chairs on the SS NeoCon and whistling his favorite song - "I am the Decider, and Your're Not. Isn't that right, Mr. CHeney?"
January 4th, 2007 at 10:45 amI haven't carefully studied the law he signed, but does anyone know if there are any penalties in the law for failure to comply? Because if the law does not stipulate any penalty for not following it, then it is toothless and it's completely understandable why this particular president would ignore it.
Like his vice president (who once shot a 78-year-old man in the face and then sent his friend out to lie to people about the incident - all 100% true), this president has no respect for the law. To him, the fact that there might not be a penalty for not following is just all the more reason to believe he doesn't have to. This president must go!
January 4th, 2007 at 10:49 amCheck it out; Bush gives 4 reasons why he does not have to follow most of the provisions of this law:
It may impair:
Foreign relations.
The national security.
The deliberative processes of the Executive.
The performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.
Yep. He pretty much covers his ass. Focus on the last 2; Bush is giving Congress the middle finger and telling them they can't make him do anything he doesn't want to do. What were we saying about separation of powers?????
January 4th, 2007 at 10:50 amgosh, maybe he'll appoint John Bolton!
January 4th, 2007 at 10:54 amWhat were we saying about separation of powers?????
Comment by WC
I know this one!!
They're a joke.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:00 amAgain another reasopn for Democrats to investigate Bush. If they don't do something about his illegal actions, they need to be swept from office just like the Republicans. Come on Dems, do something now!
January 4th, 2007 at 11:01 amComplacent President.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:01 amBenedict Arnold Bush!
Bush was intentionally procrastinating until today. Now he can blame the Democratic controlled Congress.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:03 amWhy was Bush so bent on adding North Korea to the "axis of evil" if he isn't interested in doing anything about them. Kim in my opinion is a threat, and unlike Saddam may actually be able to cause great harm internationally.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:08 amThanks for the link WC
Here's the exact language of the signing statement
A number of provisions in the Act call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other entities on various subjects. These provisions include sections 219, 313, 360, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1227, 1402, and 3116 of the Act, section 427 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 932 of the Act, and section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 1061 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
What I don't get is how he lumps 1211 into "executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other entities on various subjects." This is in no way "withholding information"
January 4th, 2007 at 11:08 amIt does no such thing.
It requires him (not optional) to appoint said policy coordinator.
Add this to the list of impeachable offenses.
Suck this figning statement.
#22 Zooey -
If they are a joke, why am I not laughing? Must be that I don't get the punch lines cause I am not a Repug.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:09 amIf they are a joke, why am I not laughing? Must be that I don’t get the punch lines cause I am not a Repug.
Comment by upside00
I didn't say it was a good joke, upside00.
It makes me sick....
January 4th, 2007 at 11:13 amMaybe he thought the law was too "quaint."
January 4th, 2007 at 11:18 amThanks for the research WC. Those are really catch all phrases. This admin. is so paranoid. How a coordinator of policy for North Korea affect any of the four reasons is beyond me.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:19 amMaybe he thought the law was too “quaint.â€
Comment by Republicans are the fear and smear party
Maybe he thought the law was just a goddamned piece of paper.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:26 amSince when did Der Chimperer ever adhere to the law?!
January 4th, 2007 at 11:29 amHis signing statement probably absolves him of all need to do anything that's listed in the law.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:31 amHis signing statement probably absolves him of all need to do anything that’s listed in the law.
Comment by Zip
Nail. On. Head.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amWorst. President. Ever
January 4th, 2007 at 12:04 pmThanks for the research WC. Those are really catch all phrases. This admin. is so paranoid. How a coordinator of policy for North Korea affect any of the four reasons is beyond me.
Comment by hellinabucket — January 4, 2007 @ 11:19 am
What I don’t get is how he lumps 1211 into “executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other entities on various subjects.†This is in no way “withholding informationâ€
Comment by RUCerious — January 4, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Only thing I can figure is that Bush is focusing on sections 3B and 3C of sec. 1211(a).
By "consult(ing) with foreign governments" and "providing policy direction and leadership for negotiations," there's no doubt going to be sensitive information floating around. Bush is saying, "Oh no, we can't do that. It may impair..." and then read the 4 reasons he gives for withholding the info, especially the 3rd and 4th reasons. The Dems in Congress may approve of any suggestions the coordinator comes up with, which would put more pressure on Bush to act. Bush doesn't like anyone to go up against a decision that he's already made.
Thus we have Bush's reasoning for not appointing a coordinator. He doesn't want one, and Congress can't make him appoint one. Congress is nothing more than a speed bump to this president. Yeah, they get in his way, but they can't stop him. He just drives right over them. Despite his public display of support for multi-party negotiations with N. Korea, Bush isn't the least bit interested in dealing with them. He'd rather leave things simmering so that he can whip the situation out when it suits him. There is no reason we shouldn't be dealing with them one-on-one. But it would make us look weak, and the cowboy we have in the White House can't have that.
Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pmWC, thanks for the interpretation.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pmIt seems tangential at best, illegal on its face.
The only thing being impaired is separation of powers and the unbridled authority of the "unitary executive".
...yes, i have a hard-drive full of criminal activity by this 'unitary executive'. It's time we jam the DC Police phone lines until they take him into custody; a permanent injunction on chimpy's criminal presidency.
....uh, if that dead-ends...WHO can we call to put chimpy in a cell while awaiting the charges against him?
January 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pmDid Bush make a signing statement when he signed it?
January 4th, 2007 at 12:41 pmLoonie,
See #17
January 4th, 2007 at 12:55 pmOh I see. Kinda miss details sometimes when I'm checking from work.
So.
He's basically being his usual, vile, scumbaggish self.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:01 pmHe’s basically being his usual, vile, scumbaggish self.
Comment by Loonie
Hey Loonie, you haven't missed a thing. Heh.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:02 pmWC, thanks for the interpretation.
It seems tangential at best, illegal on its face.
The only thing being impaired is separation of powers and the unbridled authority of the “unitary executiveâ€.
Comment by RUCerious — January 4, 2007 @ 12:24 pm\
In reality, I probably give Bush too much credit. It's likely he didn't even bother with thinking about having to explain why he didn't appoint a coordinator of policy. He just wasn't going to do it. Period.
I hope Congress follows through and holds hearings for a couple of days on Bush's signing statements, and gets this in the public record.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:19 pmOh I see. Kinda miss details sometimes when I’m checking from work.
So.
He’s basically being his usual, vile, scumbaggish self.
Comment by Loonie — January 4, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
I posted a link at 10:32am to the entire signing statement. Check it out if you have time; Bush picked out quite a handful of sections that he claims he doesn't have to abide by.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:22 pmWC, here's an interesting thought.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:21 pmSince Bush is the CINC, can we get him a Section 8?
WC, here’s an interesting thought.
Since Bush is the CINC, can we get him a Section 8?
Comment by RUCerious
Sorry, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to the C-in-C. If it did, then Clinton would have been hammered over Monica (Article 134-2--Adultery)
January 4th, 2007 at 2:44 pmWorst. President. Ever.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:22 pmIf Bush wants to issue signing statements he should have to actually write them himself. That would be a hoot.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:49 pmFT #49 -
Something like this.
Now I know y'all think that this bill is good for the nation, but Ah don't think so. Because it may disallow me to allow myselft a make the rewles bout decidin an stuff.
January 4th, 2007 at 5:28 pmSo none of this counts fer nothin. Cuz im the desider an i sed so.
good job of research, Robert. Can you site me a case where oral sex was interpreted as adultery?
January 4th, 2007 at 5:29 pmComment by RUCerious
Hilarius. Probably written in crayon too.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:47 pmTime for impeachment, how long will we let this idiot and his gang of dumbazzez go on???...
January 5th, 2007 at 9:49 amThis seems to have become simply a formum for complaining and "Bush Bashing". Maybe it would be better served if everyone would focus their energies on the positive. The "Law of Attraction, is in effect, beleive it or not / like it or not.
By complaining and giving energy to the negative perspective, you are actually giving it support and creating what you don't want......... think about it.
Better Yet..... watch "The Secret". http://thesecret.tv/home.html
January 5th, 2007 at 3:49 pmPayday Advance
If a family member is plain on check just easily apply for an online payday cash advance that is tremendous, effortless, and swift today!
March 31st, 2008 at 10:36 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm